Clarkson: Racist
Discussion
pork911 said:
if they and the BBC staff who signed off on its broadcast didn't realise, i'm surprised it and similar are not heard more often on other programs.
You're not really getting it are you? You are trying to argue something that no one seems to have said. Just what is the point you are attempting to make?pork911 said:
if they and the BBC staff who signed off on its broadcast didn't realise, i'm surprised it and similar are not heard more often on other programs.
Possibly because the majority of BBC programmes are not as risqué as Top Gear - HIGNFY or Mock The Week are possibly the only one I can think of. And they use professional comedians(!)fido said:
pork911 said:
if they and the BBC staff who signed off on its broadcast didn't realise, i'm surprised it and similar are not heard more often on other programs.
Possibly because the majority of BBC programmes are not as risqué as Top Gear - HIGNFY or Mock The Week are possibly the only one I can think of. And they use professional comedians(!)
10 Pence Short said:
mybrainhurts said:
Gardeners' Question Time can get a bit iffy...they keep slipping in spades and slopes, not to mention uphill gardening.
So long as I don't get an earful of Monty Don's shrubbery. 
fido said:
pork911 said:
if they and the BBC staff who signed off on its broadcast didn't realise, i'm surprised it and similar are not heard more often on other programs.
Possibly because the majority of BBC programmes are not as risqué as Top Gear - HIGNFY or Mock The Week are possibly the only one I can think of. And they use professional comedians(!)
) should be more careful.However given the apology I'm still surprised it and similar doesn't appear on news, light family entertainment and children's programmes etc. -
"We were not aware at the time, and it has subsequently been brought to our attention, that the word 'slope' is considered by some to be offensive and although it might not be widely recognised in the UK, we appreciate that it can be considered offensive to some here and overseas, for example in Australia and the USA.
pork911 said:
DonkeyApple said:
You're not really getting it are you? You are trying to argue something that no one seems to have said. Just what is the point you are attempting to make?
DonkeyApple said:
It wasn't racist because Clarkson isn't a racist.
Meaningless.1. Racism is usually defined as prejudice or discrimination directed against someone of a different race based on such a belief. It is someone who is prejudice and discriminates someone because of their race, ethnicity.
2. the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.
3. the belief that races have distinctive cultural characteristics determined by hereditary factors and that this endows some races with an intrinsic superiority over others
4. abusive or aggressive behaviour towards members of another race on the basis of such a belief
So, as you can see, the context and intent are always extremely relevant.
DonkeyApple said:
pork911 said:
DonkeyApple said:
You're not really getting it are you? You are trying to argue something that no one seems to have said. Just what is the point you are attempting to make?
DonkeyApple said:
It wasn't racist because Clarkson isn't a racist.
Meaningless.1. Racism is usually defined as prejudice or discrimination directed against someone of a different race based on such a belief. It is someone who is prejudice and discriminates someone because of their race, ethnicity.
2. the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.
3. the belief that races have distinctive cultural characteristics determined by hereditary factors and that this endows some races with an intrinsic superiority over others
4. abusive or aggressive behaviour towards members of another race on the basis of such a belief
So, as you can see, the context and intent are always extremely relevant.
. I'm sure they did in drafting their apology.Anyhow, you make a jump from assuming he is not 'a racist' generally (I have no idea what his beliefs are, just as you don't) to concluding the comment therefore wasn't. Of course you start with your conclusion, like all good circular arguments.
It's similar to 'Dave told a lie, but he's not a liar so he didn't tell a lie.'
Or the usual excuse people make knowing what someone has done ..'he's not like that'...as if to gloss over what was said or done.
pork911 said:
Did you not get beyond a dictionary to consider equality and discrimination legislation? . I'm sure they did in drafting their apology.
Anyhow, you make a jump from assuming he is not 'a racist' generally (I have no idea what his beliefs are, just as you don't) to concluding the comment therefore wasn't. Of course you start with your conclusion, like all good circular arguments.
It's similar to 'Dave told a lie, but he's not a liar so he didn't tell a lie.'
Or the usual excuse people make knowing what someone has done ..'he's not like that'...as if to gloss over what was said or done.
You seem terribly fixated on this 'apology'. What exactly is its relevance?. I'm sure they did in drafting their apology.Anyhow, you make a jump from assuming he is not 'a racist' generally (I have no idea what his beliefs are, just as you don't) to concluding the comment therefore wasn't. Of course you start with your conclusion, like all good circular arguments.
It's similar to 'Dave told a lie, but he's not a liar so he didn't tell a lie.'
Or the usual excuse people make knowing what someone has done ..'he's not like that'...as if to gloss over what was said or done.
You also seem to be trying to argue something with me that I never said.
Or are you adamant that the remark was racist?
Currently you aren't making much sense as to what it is that you are trying to argue against. Apart from just some strange need to simply argue over something and make incorrect accusations.
DonkeyApple said:
pork911 said:
Did you not get beyond a dictionary to consider equality and discrimination legislation? . I'm sure they did in drafting their apology.
Anyhow, you make a jump from assuming he is not 'a racist' generally (I have no idea what his beliefs are, just as you don't) to concluding the comment therefore wasn't. Of course you start with your conclusion, like all good circular arguments.
It's similar to 'Dave told a lie, but he's not a liar so he didn't tell a lie.'
Or the usual excuse people make knowing what someone has done ..'he's not like that'...as if to gloss over what was said or done.
You seem terribly fixated on this 'apology'. What exactly is its relevance?. I'm sure they did in drafting their apology.Anyhow, you make a jump from assuming he is not 'a racist' generally (I have no idea what his beliefs are, just as you don't) to concluding the comment therefore wasn't. Of course you start with your conclusion, like all good circular arguments.
It's similar to 'Dave told a lie, but he's not a liar so he didn't tell a lie.'
Or the usual excuse people make knowing what someone has done ..'he's not like that'...as if to gloss over what was said or done.
You also seem to be trying to argue something with me that I never said.
Or are you adamant that the remark was racist?
Currently you aren't making much sense as to what it is that you are trying to argue against. Apart from just some strange need to simply argue over something and make incorrect accusations.
pork911 said:
Donkey apple - you said - 'It wasn't racist because Clarkson isn't a racist.'
That makes no sense at all.
Clear enough?
Ok, that's clearer. Now, why does it make no sense to you?That makes no sense at all.
Clear enough?
If I were to lean out of my window right now and shout 'yid', it wouldn't make me a racist, it would make me an idiot and a vulgar one at that. A word is only racist if it is used with the intent of being racist.
For example, if Nick Griffin began referring to blacks as 'daisies' you have a situation where the word is not racist but being deliberately used by a racist as a coded slur.
Context is hugely important and the loss of context within what is arguably an excessively PC media and social environment is pertinent.
Of course the origins of the word 'slope' in this context is racist but the question is whether it's application in this instance was racist. The answer is no, it wasn't delivered as a deliberate slur against a people but as a supposedly cunning play on words, the intent clearly being to say something rude and unPC, risqué humour. For me it failed, not because it was said but because it was published.
DonkeyApple said:
Of course the origins of the word 'slope' in this context is racist but the question is whether it's application in this instance was racist. The answer is no, it wasn't delivered as a deliberate slur against a people but as a supposedly cunning play on words, the intent clearly being to say something rude and unPC, risqué humour. For me it failed, not because it was said but because it was published.
A good example of this would be in Tramadol Nights where Frankie Boyle refers to the MoD as the 'department of n****r bombing' obviously referring to their activities in the colonial days. It's humorous usage of a racist word but within a specific context.DonkeyApple said:
Ok, that's clearer. Now, why does it make no sense to you?
If I were to lean out of my window right now and shout 'yid', it wouldn't make me a racist, it would make me an idiot and a vulgar one at that. A word is only racist if it is used with the intent of being racist.
For example, if Nick Griffin began referring to blacks as 'daisies' you have a situation where the word is not racist but being deliberately used by a racist as a coded slur.
Context is hugely important and the loss of context within what is arguably an excessively PC media and social environment is pertinent.
Of course the origins of the word 'slope' in this context is racist but the question is whether it's application in this instance was racist. The answer is no, it wasn't delivered as a deliberate slur against a people but as a supposedly cunning play on words, the intent clearly being to say something rude and unPC, risqué humour. For me it failed, not because it was said but because it was published.
Sorry, but this doesn't add up.If I were to lean out of my window right now and shout 'yid', it wouldn't make me a racist, it would make me an idiot and a vulgar one at that. A word is only racist if it is used with the intent of being racist.
For example, if Nick Griffin began referring to blacks as 'daisies' you have a situation where the word is not racist but being deliberately used by a racist as a coded slur.
Context is hugely important and the loss of context within what is arguably an excessively PC media and social environment is pertinent.
Of course the origins of the word 'slope' in this context is racist but the question is whether it's application in this instance was racist. The answer is no, it wasn't delivered as a deliberate slur against a people but as a supposedly cunning play on words, the intent clearly being to say something rude and unPC, risqué humour. For me it failed, not because it was said but because it was published.
You're absolutely right about context. Shouting 'yid' in the context you describe isn't racist. On the other hand, shouting 'yid' out of the car window at a jew would be racist. I think we can agree on that.
You agree that the term 'slope' may be racist in certain contexts and that Clarkson used it as a play on words. If the guy hadn't been on the bridge, there wouldn't have been an appropriate context and nobody could have accused Clarkson of racism. However, he used the term knowingly and that's what makes it racist. Just because it's a cunning play on words doesn't diffuse the racism or make it go away. If Clarkson wants to make a point about the slipperiness of language there's no problem either - guys like Paul Merton and Harry Hill do it all the time without causing offence.
I don't think that Clarkson is a spittle flecked racist, but he doesn't come out as squeaky clean on this. If he was really was being brave and battling against 'the tide of PC' then he'd be out there defending his 'joke' to the hilt and telling people to f
k off. He isn't, though, is he? He's made no statement (as far as I know) and is now hiding behind some poor bugger from the BBC and letting them take the flak. Mr Snap said:
I don't think that Clarkson is a spittle flecked racist, but he doesn't come out as squeaky clean on this. If he was really was being brave and battling against 'the tide of PC' then he'd be out there defending his 'joke' to the hilt and telling people to fk off. He isn't, though, is he? He's made no statement (as far as I know) and is now hiding behind some poor bugger from the BBC and letting them take the flak.
I disagree - I see no point in him trying to explain every risque joke to a minority that is deliberately trying not to understand the humour.k off. He isn't, though, is he? He's made no statement (as far as I know) and is now hiding behind some poor bugger from the BBC and letting them take the flak. It’s vaguely funny because it’s deliberately naughty, puerile and idiotic, but certainly doesn’t oppress anyone of any race, deny them a job or negate them their rights as a valid human being. It’s more of a cheap pop at knee-jerk over-PC handwringers and frankly they deserve it as a tonic for their ignorant self-righteous arrogance.
But we must be careful not to be handwringerist.
Jacobyte said:
I disagree - I see no point in him trying to explain every risque joke to a minority that is deliberately trying not to understand the humour.
It’s vaguely funny because it’s deliberately naughty, puerile and idiotic, but certainly doesn’t oppress anyone of any race, deny them a job or negate them their rights as a valid human being. It’s more of a cheap pop at knee-jerk over-PC handwringers and frankly they deserve it as a tonic for their ignorant self-righteous arrogance.
But we must be careful not to be handwringerist.
Yep, but like you say, it wasn't very funny so all you're left with is a weak racist jibe and a cheap pop. It’s vaguely funny because it’s deliberately naughty, puerile and idiotic, but certainly doesn’t oppress anyone of any race, deny them a job or negate them their rights as a valid human being. It’s more of a cheap pop at knee-jerk over-PC handwringers and frankly they deserve it as a tonic for their ignorant self-righteous arrogance.
But we must be careful not to be handwringerist.
For the millions Clarkson is being paid, I'd like my rare meat to be better cooked and seasoned. If he wants to take a pop at the hand wringers he needs better ammunition.
DonkeyApple said:
pork911 said:
Donkey apple - you said - 'It wasn't racist because Clarkson isn't a racist.'
That makes no sense at all.
Clear enough?
Ok, that's clearer. Now, why does it make no sense to you?That makes no sense at all.
Clear enough?
If I were to lean out of my window right now and shout 'yid', it wouldn't make me a racist, it would make me an idiot and a vulgar one at that. A word is only racist if it is used with the intent of being racist.
For example, if Nick Griffin began referring to blacks as 'daisies' you have a situation where the word is not racist but being deliberately used by a racist as a coded slur.
Context is hugely important and the loss of context within what is arguably an excessively PC media and social environment is pertinent.
Of course the origins of the word 'slope' in this context is racist but the question is whether it's application in this instance was racist. The answer is no, it wasn't delivered as a deliberate slur against a people but as a supposedly cunning play on words, the intent clearly being to say something rude and unPC, risqué humour. For me it failed, not because it was said but because it was published.
griffin delivering the same line in the exact same circumstances (a strange top gear special no doubt;)) would apparently make its use different in type according to you
i've heard similar guff many times 'no offence' 'i'm not like that' 'i didn't mean any harm' 'its just a joke' 'some of my best friends are..' etc
we wont agree and that's fine
pork911 said:
DonkeyApple said:
pork911 said:
Donkey apple - you said - 'It wasn't racist because Clarkson isn't a racist.'
That makes no sense at all.
Clear enough?
Ok, that's clearer. Now, why does it make no sense to you?That makes no sense at all.
Clear enough?
If I were to lean out of my window right now and shout 'yid', it wouldn't make me a racist, it would make me an idiot and a vulgar one at that. A word is only racist if it is used with the intent of being racist.
For example, if Nick Griffin began referring to blacks as 'daisies' you have a situation where the word is not racist but being deliberately used by a racist as a coded slur.
Context is hugely important and the loss of context within what is arguably an excessively PC media and social environment is pertinent.
Of course the origins of the word 'slope' in this context is racist but the question is whether it's application in this instance was racist. The answer is no, it wasn't delivered as a deliberate slur against a people but as a supposedly cunning play on words, the intent clearly being to say something rude and unPC, risqué humour. For me it failed, not because it was said but because it was published.
griffin delivering the same line in the exact same circumstances (a strange top gear special no doubt;)) would apparently make its use different in type according to you
i've heard similar guff many times 'no offence' 'i'm not like that' 'i didn't mean any harm' 'its just a joke' 'some of my best friends are..' etc
we wont agree and that's fine
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff